Message-ID: <3A2FF3A9.40272E55@student.umass.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 13:31:37 -0700
From: Jasper McChesney <jasperm@student.umass.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: FUDGE as an IF system
References: <slrn92tptu.e8k.jcmason@xenocide.slack> <t2u3p4tnnucr90@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: lech-33.res.umass.edu
X-Trace: 7 Dec 2000 13:27:26 -0500, lech-33.res.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 12
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.umass.edu!oit.umass.edu!lech-33.res.umass.edu
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:81153

pblock wrote:
>
> FUDGE OTOH has a simple system which is flexible for nearly any situation,
> so it would work well as a basis for structure in IF.

I think the problem with FUDGE is not that is not flexible, but that it
cannot possibly hope to do everything that a GM does.  A computer
implementation may be able to handle a good number of situations, but
it will not, in a generic way, be able to resolve complex situations.
So if you're going to have a rule-set, why not go for something more
restrictive that will thus be able to handle (well) anything you throw
at it.  It'd rather that than a simplistic interpretation of my command.
